Galadorn

Re: Attack that only affects evil. Suggestions? Try this: Only works vs. evil. You don't need any selective advantage, because the spell only works versus evil. You can even make is area of effect and it still won't effect anyone else because it only works versus evil. Get it? This is not meant to be harsh, but only help you focus. Only vs. Evil in Fantasy Hero Companion III (Second Edition) was a -1/2 limitation. All this was address in the second edition FH - to a point. I am working on an system right now for my own campaign - which I may share in DH. 1. You have to standardize what evil and good mean in game terms. Is it a psych. limit to be good? Is it a new disadvantage? I made it a completely new limitation. It's called a "Moral Limitation." No, not a psychological limitation - just because a person "feels" good, does not make a person good. Having one degree in psychology and another in behavioral science, I can say psychology - with it's tendency toward subjectivism - is not a standard of morality. A person may feel good about killing, but does that make it right? So the bottom line is - "what does it mean to be good?" I tend to stick to the ten commandments in this regard. 2. Secondly, standardizing limitations, powers, skills and all effects that might be deemed "good." All undead, demons, etc. would have a vulnerability and/or a susceptibility to "good" powers. Standarization is something Hero Games hasn't done well in regards to the "good" and "evil" dynamic; D&D has done it well. It is somewhat clear, in D&D, which monsters are effected by holy water or holy items, and just what that effect it (i.e. damage, prevention of regeneration, etc.) So every monster, of the supernatural evil type, should have this limitation. 3. Option #3 is to give items powers instead "only usable versus evil." I think this is the most complicated and hard to handle method though - because you have to account for defenses. Hope this helps.

Ouch.

I really have no idea who this is. I find this comment spurious for the following reasons: 1. He is the only deity in Greyhawk called a "Saint" which is from the latin "sanctus." meaning holy. 2. His holy symbol is a disguised cross, and to my knowledge has always been the same symbol (including the cudgel and crumpled hat as well). 3. He has the name of a real-world Saint. 4. Verbobanc, where Saint Cuthbert is most prominent, is culturally similar to England - even to the point of having historical parallels. 5. Saint Cuthbert of Lindesfarne is the most prominent Saint in Medieval England, apart from Saint George. And Verbobanc's cultural similarity to England completes the picture. But at this point the similarity ends. There is another Saint Cuthbert of Mayne in the 16th century, who was martyred for his Catholic beliefs. For neither Saint Cuthbert can I find a reference to a crumpled hat. Who created this Saint anyway? The quoted listed above refers to 3rd Ed. But I believe Cuthbert came from Gygax, so 3rd Edition is a little late to comment on his origins.

Saint Cuthbert was an actual Saint on the planet Earth. You can find information about him online. I even wrote a "Up On A Soapbox" letter about the mistreatment of his name. There are actually two Saint Cuthberts, both from England. The one I wrote a letter on was Saint Cuthbert of Lindesfarne. The real Saint Cuthbert was a bishop of Lindesfarne, and was a combination divine naturalist, and hermit - though in his latter life he was a bishop after years of hermitage. I have never heard the connection between Pelor and Saint Cuthbert, where did you get this information. His entry in the Living Greyhawk Gazzetter, says he was "a mortal man from another world," or some such quote. I always took this to mean Earth. Secondly, the God of the Jews, Muslims and Christians is Omnipotent (All-powerful), he is the only God, and he has many other attributes including love, all-prescence, infinite intellect and knowledge, etc. This leaves no room for other Gods - for to have two Gods being all-powerful is a logical contradiction. So no, the Greyhawk version of the Pelor, Pholtus and Cuthbert trinity is a logical contradiction as well. The Trinity of the Christian Faithful is not three gods, arguing and disagreeing with each other - its one God, and three divine persons. These three persons all agree with each other, act together in every action, share the same divine being, and share the same knowledge. Each divine person has his own function and personality, they are not clones of each other - but they are still united in the same being. It would take an infinite God to reveal such a divine truth and mystery. To try to understand God is simply beyond our mortal ability. The best we can equivilate D & D pantheistic mythology to Christianity is in making Saints, Demigods. Even then no Saint has the ability to create something of his own power. But a Saint, according to traditional teaching - does have the ability to teleport wherever he wants, whenever he wants - has full life support, can walk through Suns (this kind of life support), cannot be injured in any way, is immortal, can cause miracles to happen as an intercessor, and many other abilities. A Saint, in the traditional sense, has died - no living person would have these abilities. Take Care

I'll have to check my notes, I believe the oldest texts to his religion were long before that time. Anyway, oral tradition cannot be proved. Linguistic analysis does say that the stories of creation and such pre-dated the written Jewish traditions, but that is hardly proof. It is supportive evidence, but not proof. I agree.

I read the whole first Thomas Covenant (TC) series, but cared little for the second TC series. I liked the whole thing, to a point. After reading the whole TC series, I decided one thing for a fact - I HATE crossover books, TC excluded. I even read the Bakers Boy Series (The Book of Words Series), and finished the whole thing. Then J.V. Jones wrote a cross-over book, that was it for me - I haven't even checked her new books since. Do authors right cross-over novels because their easier and give a ready and easily understood P.O.V. character? Don't ask me, but this author is not writing any of that junk. Of course this is all my personal opinion. By the way, this IS an attempt to get this thread back on the worst of S&S topic.

We all have to make our money Storn, I'm a professional writer - I know the feeling.

Good Idea. Pictures of monsters are not much good without stats, unless you want to spend hours and hours creating them. LOL

Some Zoroastrians might take argument with this statement. The oldest known text for Zoroastrianism is dated (through linguist analysis) to a time before the oldest Jewish texts. Ummmmm, God's stats are infinite. He can be whatever He wants, do whatever He wants, make whatever He wants - and finally, in pure spirit - He HAS no stats, unless infinite is a stat.

Re: My contribution... I missed it. The WB had a conan series for a while, it looked promising - and only that, promising - but it didn't last. I wonder what happened to it.

You must be a liberal subjectivist. I don't know if you are Christian, but if you are "The Gospel which I preached to you" - Saint Paul. Secondly, when did I say that I was revealing anything to anyone? You need to study more, and stick to what I said not a word more, not a word less, not an inference more, not an inference less, not a jot more, not a tiddle less. Get the point yet?

Re: my MMM color versions Thank you, thank you, thank you.

ME too.

I know a good exorcist, he gets rid of demons under 350 pt.s

It's still part of the work, and you can't prove otherwise.

This is incorrect, I invite you to study more. One God and three divine persons. If you don't understand the difference between the word God and the word persons then try this out: http://www.dictionary.com and do a word study. This is not an insult on your intelligence, people just assume they know the meaning of words, but when they get into the nitty gritty, they really don't have the depth of knowledge they need. I do word studies all the time. I'm going to be precise with a critique of your choice of words. At no time did anyone "invent" monotheism. If you have true faith then you would believe that it is a truth that simply is. No invention is required, but revelation is necessary to know this universal, objective truth. This is completely untrue, but it is probably more appropriate to continue this dicussion in the NGD section. At least is true, but it actually dates back farther then Aton. The bible itself was written in 3,500 B.C. Aten was created in 1500 B.C. Aten worship is a little late as an entry in the monotheism debate. The time of origin of a teaching in human history, is not a proof of authenticity of that teaching. Rather it rests on the one giving the testimony. And, you are putting words in my mouth- I never said that the teaching of monotheism started with the Christians. I said and I'll quote: Just think about what you said: 1. When did I say Christians originated the teaching of monotheism? 2. When did I imply that Christians originated the teaching of monotheism? I'll quote myself again: I only said that Christians were "all over the place" at the time. I didn't say anything about them being the originators of monotheism. I only referred to the time of the authorship of the Edda, and the culture, geography, and society in which it was written; about the 10th century. I invite you to read more closely, and stick to what I said. Let's take this to the NGD Section please, thank you.

I agree. Actually if you read the Edda, which seems to be the authoritative text on the Norse pantheon - the last paragraph talks about something like "one who is greater will come, to replace all the Asgard." So Thor was not the answer to the Christian God, he was less then the Christian God - so the Edda hints at. Thirdly, the Edda was finished around the 10 Century A.D., and Christians were all over the place in the Deutschlands. Thus it was likely that the passage was referring to the Christian God. So again, historical criticism seems to make it plain who the Edda was talking about - The One God of the Christians.

Yes, I don't think I said different. I was just exploring another side of the discussion.

Ask the Russians about that. LOL "Vant some wodka wit dat bark?" I am referring, of course, to World War I and World War II, where the russian soldiers were forced to eat tree pulp and bark because of the scarcity of other edible foods. Though, I don't think Tolkien had this in mind when he created Lothlorien. Ahhhhh such a melodic name Lothlorien is. LOL. Well, the wood elves we know had developed trade with the Laketowners. So, Tolkien did have some sensibility about economics and business.

Nope, you struck my ignore button. I've had enough of dysfunction 101 for today, and for the rest of my life for that matter. Secondly, youve never heard the expression, "give credit where credit is due?" It has a flipside to it "don't give credit where credit is not due."

Excellent review on page four D-Man, thank you.

Don't ask me, I'm waiting for three hero game books in the mail, and waiting for MMM to be posted on the hero online store.

Don't try to "norm" me, thank you.

Go on ignore, noone tells me to shut up and gets away with it - not even Laura Ingraham.

Actually, in the comics, Sonja and Conan knew each other. I seem to remember there was some link between them in the books as well - but Conan was older?